The petitioners averred that when they sought to present the sale deed for registration, respondent No.2 refused to receive the same on the ground that respondent No.3 has informed him that the property over which the flats have been constructed belongs to the Government.- unless the property is notified under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short ‘the Act’), respondent No.2 is not bound by the communication sent by the revenue officials. Therefore, respondent No.2 is directed to receive the document that may be presented by the petitioners and process the same in accordance with the provisions of Section 71 of the Act.

WP 50 / 2013

WPSR 218898 / 2012

PETITIONERRESPONDENT
N. RAMA CHARY, HYD & 3 OT  VSPRL. SECY TO GOVT., STAMPS & REGN DEPT., HYD & 2 OT
PET.ADV. : VIJAY B PAROPAKARIRESP.ADV. : GP FOR REVENUE
SUBJECT: STAMPS & REGISTRATIONDISTRICT:  RANGA REDDY
FILING DATE:  31-12-2012POSTING STAGE :  ADMISSION (STAMPS AND REGISTRATION )DISPOSED ON  :  03-01-2013  DONC
REG. DATE    :   02-01-2013LISTING DATE :  03-01-2013STATUS   :  ---------
HON'BLE JUDGE(S):C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY    

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

WRIT PETITION No.50 of 2013

Dated 03.01.2013
Between:

M.Rama Chary and others
          …Petitioners

And


Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, and others
          …Respondents

Counsel for the petitioners: Sri Vijay B.Paropkari



Counsel for respondents: Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue

 

The Court made the following:





 ORDER:                           
          The purported action of respondent No.2 in not receiving and registering the sale deed that is sought to be presented by the petitioners in respect of flat No.002, ground floor, Manasa Meadows situated in survey No.12 of B.K.Nagar Colony, Block No.5, Mallapur Village, Uppal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, is questioned in this writ petition.

          The petitioners averred that when they sought to present the sale deed for registration, respondent No.2 refused to receive the same on the ground that respondent No.3 has informed him that the property over which the flats have been constructed belongs to the Government.

          At the hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue conceded that unless the property is notified under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short ‘the Act’), respondent No.2 is not bound by the communication sent by the revenue officials. 

Therefore, respondent No.2 is directed to receive the document that may be presented by the petitioners and process the same in accordance with the provisions of Section 71 of the Act.  If respondent No.2 has any legally sustainable reason(s) for refusing to register the document, he shall pass an order assigning reason(s) therefor and communicate the same to the petitioners within one week from the date of receipt of the document. Conversely, if he does not find any legally sustainable objections, respondent No.2 shall register the document.

          Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of.


As a sequel, W.P.M.P.No.52 of 2013 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.










________________________

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

3rd January, 2013                  
GHN 






















































THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY










































WRIT PETITION No.185 of 2013

Dated 03.01.2013
SKA/GHN



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.